Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible

[outhouse]

its my opinion ancient hebrews created their deitys starting with the god figure.

Now did they create god for their needs or did they actually have a experience they could not explain and then write about it.???????

I say the same deity tradition used to create the god figure was used with jesus. Even you stated jesus was just a man.

we know they "ancient hebrews" created the trinity. what else did they create?

 

[outhouse]

I believe that they were written as 100% nonfiction. That doesn't make them accurate. There are theological components in the Gospels. There are exaggerations, and there are some mythical aspects. However, I believe that the Gospel writers truly believed what they were writing. And that they intended their work to be nonfiction.

see I dont believe they believed all of what they wrote, is there anything backing this idea? or was it wrote to be as nonfiction to gain credibility among the masses.???

you cannot get people behind something made up. fact is we know allot was made up. that is different from a lack of accuracy.

if they did really believe, they may have kept the early ancient gods they created like asherah instead of just trashing them. they changed belief like underwear.

 

[outhouse]

didnt mean to take it so far off topic.

 

[fallingblood]

its my opinion ancient hebrews created their deitys starting with the god figure.

Now did they create god for their needs or did they actually have a experience they could not explain and then write about it.???????

I say the same deity tradition used to create the god figure was used with jesus. Even you stated jesus was just a man.

we know they "ancient hebrews" created the trinity. what else did they create?

Ancient Hebrews didn't create the trinity. That is a Christian creation, that occurred some time after Christianity had actually been formed.

Whether or not the Ancient Hebrews created a deity or not really isn't the question. It is whether or not they believed that that deity existed. The answer is yes, and the proof for that is the continued worship of that deity as we can mark through the generations.

As for how was this deity created? We can assume that it was nearly like any other. There was a need to explain the world around them. There was a need to explain how things worked. So, the idea of a god was formed. From the evidence we have, those gods were believed to exist. We have no evidence that they were created as pieces of fiction, and then later thought to have existed. They are thought to have existed from the beginning.

Did they have an experience? Probably. They offer a sacrifice, and it rains. It is a coincidence, but it was logical at the time to suspect that their offering pleased the god, and in return, the god rewarded them. Or another example. A couple offers a gift to the gods in the hope that the birth of their child is just fine. The child is born without complications, and that couple now believes they have a personal experience with a god. So there is something behind the belief. It is both a need based belief, as well as one that is made from personal experiences. The key though, the people truly believe that the god exist. Thus, when they write theological or historical accounts about that god, it is done so as nonfiction. They aren't writing fiction, they are writing what they believe to be true.

Now, I wouldn't argue that is how the whole Bible is written (things such a poetry do not fall into the category). But in the case of the Gospels, there is little reason to doubt that the authors believed that they were writing fiction. There is little reason to believe that they didn't have faith that what they were writing was true.

As for Jesus, there is a plethora of information showing that he existed. There is even more evidence to show that as time went on, new ideas and beliefs formed about him. By the time that Mark was writing his Gospel, we can see how this oral tradition transformed at least in one case. However, Mark gives us no real clues to make us think that he was writing fiction. He writes some extraordinary material, but it is presented as either theologically, or historically motivated.

There is no denying that there are theological motivated aspects in his writing. However, at the same time, he believes that they are true. He isn't simply making up a fictional story, he is basing his account on what he thinks is true. Thus, the work is nonfiction.

 

[outhouse]

ive been searching

are myths fiction

is a forgery fiction

attributing authors fiction

and then it dawned on me the book of revelation certainly would have to contain fictional aspects if not the above.


i did run over one paragraph that states we dont know one way or the other if the bible is fiction or nonfiction.


I still cannot personly grasp %100 non fiction as I believe the scribes/authors also used a little artistic freedom

 

[fallingblood]

ive been searching

are myths fiction

is a forgery fiction

attributing authors fiction

and then it dawned on me the book of revelation certainly would have to contain fictional aspects if not the above.


i did run over one paragraph that states we dont know one way or the other if the bible is fiction or nonfiction.


I still cannot personly grasp %100 non fiction as I believe the scribes/authors also used a little artistic freedom

Myths are not fiction. Myth, when talking in a scholarly point of view, does not instantly mean they are fiction. Here is a short intro: Myth (disambiguation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Myths also occur in nonfiction. Here is another intro: "A story may be considered true (and therefore a myth) in one society, but considered fictional (and therefore a folktale) in another society." Mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, it is important to note that myth does not make something fictional.

Forgery also does not automatically fall under fiction. And really, forgery has nothing to do with what we are talking about: the Gospels. We can look at some of the pseudo Pauline epistles anyway. They are letters with a specific purpose. They give instructions to different congregations. The content is nonfiction. There are instructions, and theological ideas. Writing it in the name of Paul, even though deceptive, is to give the information more authority. That doesn't make it fictional though. It may contain a lie, but lies also are not fictional per se.

As for attributing names to Gospels. That is neither here nor there. If I attribute the Gospel of Thomas to Sandra Bullock, that doesn't effect who actually wrote the Gospel, or the content their in. Obviously, I would be wrong. But just because someone later on attributes a writing to someone else (which happened quite frequently), that does not mean it is fiction. It means someone made a mistake.

As for the book of Revelation, it falls under the genre Apocalypse. It does not instantly become fiction, or contain fiction. Instead, it is not written literally. It uses metaphors, allegorical symbols, etc. There is a difference between that and fiction. More so, we aren't talking about Revelation here. We are talking about the Gospels.

Finally, artistic freedom, such as exaggeration, does not constitute fiction. More so, you would have to show that scribes purposely wrote down fiction. You would have to show that the scribes purposely fabricated false stories. That would be extremely difficult.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Forgery also does not automatically fall under fiction. And really, forgery has nothing to do with what we are talking about: the Gospels.

I believe that "forgery" would apply to a scribe who inserts a story or sentence into a Gospel, pretending to be the original writer.

 

[outhouse]

Again, it is important to note that myth does not make something fictional.

I agree

Forgery also does not automatically fall under fiction

agree

As for attributing names to Gospels. That is neither here nor there.

agree

We are talking about the Gospels

ok back on track

You would have to show that the scribes purposely fabricated false stories. That would be extremely difficult.

some of the story's or fables speak for themselves

my point is you take some authors who copy from each other and not one of them knew jesus at all and their writing specific storys that contradict each other to the points its obvious neither knows what there talking about....... makes it hard to write factual material but very easy to write a fable/story based on a few tid bits they have heard or were told.

I dont think you can veryify nonfiction in the same respect I cannot verify fiction

again I dont think its all fiction but I cant grasp %100 non fiction

 

[outhouse]

You will never convince me they didnt know the ressurection was fiction, I mean what do you call the addition of magic to a historical story??? that contradicts itself in different books.

is there any way you can show or prove that the magic addition is non fiction.

including the magic of walking on water ect ect ect.

 

[Pegg]

its my opinion ancient hebrews created their deitys starting with the god figure.

Now did they create god for their needs or did they actually have a experience they could not explain and then write about it.???????

I say the same deity tradition used to create the god figure was used with jesus. Even you stated jesus was just a man.

we know they "ancient hebrews" created the trinity. what else did they create?

what are you smokin in your pipe?

 

[waitasec]

You will never convince me they didnt know the ressurection was fiction, I mean what do you call the addition of magic to a historical story??? that contradicts itself in different books.

is there any way you can show or prove that the magic addition is non fiction.

including the magic of walking on water ect ect ect.

good point...
the resurrection and the claims of miracles are a work of fiction...

 

[Pegg]

good point...

the resurrection and the claims of miracles are a work of fiction...

the question is, can you prove they are work of fiction?

or is there any evidence proving they are a work of fiction?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Have you ever seen the movie, "Single, White Female?"...

Sure. Why? Are you claiming to have played some part in that story? The inspiration for the roommate or something?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Your position is mistaken. "Tracking the precise language" does not indicate that the source is "fiction." It does indicate a practice of ancient transmission, much of which is not fictional.

You're mistaken. Sorry.

 

[waitasec]

the question is, can you prove they are work of fiction?

or is there any evidence proving they are a work of fiction?​

it's really not a matter of proving it's a matter of probability of it ever happening....

mark 16:17
And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

i don't see these things happening either...​

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Buzz, buzz, sweetie!:flirt:

Sorry, but you were not the inspiration for this particular blowfly. However, in the future, I will strive to include you in my little metaphors. I don't want to hurt any feelings.

 

[fallingblood]

You will never convince me they didnt know the ressurection was fiction, I mean what do you call the addition of magic to a historical story??? that contradicts itself in different books.

is there any way you can show or prove that the magic addition is non fiction.

including the magic of walking on water ect ect ect.

Lets start with the resurrection. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, goes into detail about the subject of the resurrection. From what he says, it is obvious that he believed that resurrection was a thing of nonfiction. He states clearly that he truly believes that Jesus was resurrected, and that the general resurrection had begun.

If we look at resurrection in a historical context, specifically that of first century Palestine, in the specific context of Judaism; resurrection was believed to be something that would happen (at least among certain sects). It wasn't magical thinking, it was something that would happen.

Since it was deemed to be something that would happen, since Paul goes into detail about the subject, and the Gospel writers based much of their ideas on the supposed fact that Jesus was resurrected, there is no reason to assume that they did not actually believe the resurrection occurred. Especially considering the amount of time Paul spends "proving" the idea.

As for the other magical elements, we have to place them in context. One can still find cultures that believe in magic. A great recent example can be seen in David Blaine's TV special, Magic Man (it could also be Street Magic, as I can't remember fully), he went to more primitive societies and some of the people truly were afraid. The reason was because they thought he was doing real magic. It wasn't simply illusions, for them it was actual magic, and the belief was that he had supernatural powers.

Ormond McGill has a wonderful set of books on witchcraft and magic in India. Here again, he shows that there is still the belief in some areas that magic truly is real. Even Houdini spent a major part of his later career exposing the tricks of people claiming supernatural powers (he focused primarily on spirit mediums, but also exposed various other "charlatans"). If you have time, you can even read through the archives on James Randi's website. Over and over again he exposes people who claim to have supernatural abilities.

The fact is, people in the past, and even today, believe that magic can and does happen. Even when I have performed, I have had people who claim that I can really levitate. I have had people who claim that they saw me levitate a full-size care (in reality, it was a model car. However, the way it was presented, for this particular individual, changed how he remembered it), and I'm not the only magician who has had this happen to them.

There is no reason to assume that the Gospel writers did not believe those magical occurrences happened, or could happen.

 

[fallingblood]

I believe that "forgery" would apply to a scribe who inserts a story or sentence into a Gospel, pretending to be the original writer.

That makes more sense for this. I just read Ehrman's new book, Forged, and now whenever I hear forgery I think of Paul.

 

[sojourner]

Sure. Why? Are you claiming to have played some part in that story? The inspiration for the roommate or something?

Don't be so obviously obtuse. you know what I'm talking about.

 

[sojourner]

You're mistaken. Sorry.

Oh, I'm so sorry! That answer is incorrect. You'll be leaving our game show now, but we don't want to go home empty-handed. Jim, what's he won?

Jim: You'll be leaving us with the home version of our game: "Finding Your Exegetical Butt With Both Hands!"

(applause, happy organ music)